Examples of rulings

An older woman was treated with medicine for several years and developed osteoporosis. We ruled that the osteoporosis began because she did not supplement with calcium or vitamin D, which are known to prevent osteoporosis. The lack of preventive treatment was the cause of the woman developing osteoporosis. As a result, by law, she was entitled to compensation, because she was injured due to the treatment.

Two months after a 29-year-old woman started using birth control pills, she had acute headaches and experienced photophobia. An MRI showed that she had a blood clot in the brain. We ruled that the blood clot was caused by the birth control pills. Birth control pills are known to cause blood clots, although it is a rare side-effect, that exceeds what the patient should tolerate when using  birth control. As a result, she was entitled to compensation for experiencing a side-effect caused by medicine that was rare and serious.

A boy received a hit to his wrist. At the emergency room they noted a slight soreness, but the boy could still move his hand normally. An X-ray did not show any sign of fracture. The boy subsequently experienced discomfort from his hand. The hospital took a new X-ray, which showed that there had indeed been a fracture, and the boy went through operation. We ruled that the boy should have been examined more closely during the first visit to the emergency room and should have had a special type of X-ray picture taken. Legally, the boy was entitled to compensation, because he had an injury caused by delay of treatment.

A woman had her breast X-rayed. The examination showed a great deal of glandular tissue and a tumor in the lymph node, but there was no sign of cancer. Six months later she experienced pain in the same breast. An examination showed that she had cancer, and she had her breast removed. We ruled that they should have taken a sample during the first examination, since it is highly likely that the cancer would then have been discovered. We did, however reject the case, because we ruled that the treatment (the removal of the breast) would have been the same, even if the cancer had been found during the first examination. The woman's chances of survival were not reduced because of the treatment delay. The conclusion was that legally, she was not entitled to compensation.